Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 8 - Evidence - Meeting of December 5, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, December 5, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:00 p.m. to continue its study on the challenges associated with access to French-language schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Claudette Tardif. I am from Alberta and I am pleased to chair this evening's meeting.
Before giving the floor to our witnesses, I would invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator McIntyre: Senator Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: Good evening. Senator Raymonde Gagné, from Manitoba.
Senator Fraser: Joan Fraser, from Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Good evening. Senator Ghislain Maltais, from Quebec.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its special study on access to French-language schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia. The committee particularly wishes to study the issue of acquiring federal lands in order to build French-language schools in Vancouver.
This evening we welcome the Canada Lands Company Limited. It is our pleasure to receive Mr. John McBain, president and chief executive officer, Ms. Deana Grinnell, senior director of real estate, and Mr. Robert Howald, executive vice-president, real estate.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here with us this evening.
[English]
Mr. McBain, I understand that you will be speaking first. If you would keep your comments to a relatively short period of time in order for senators to ask questions, that would be most appreciated. Thank you.
John McBain, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Lands Company Limited: Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting Canada Lands Company Limited to appear today.
[Translation]
In order to give you more detail and perspectives, I am accompanied today by Mr. Robert Howald, executive vice-president, real estate, and by Ms. Deana Grinnell, senior director of real estate, British Columbia region.
[English]
Canada Lands Company Limited, or CLCL, was originally incorporated in 1956 and was reactivated by the government in 1995. In 2001, Treasury Board ministers confirmed the corporation's mandate for the disposition of selected surplus federal real properties with best value to the Canadian taxpayer, supported by the findings of a mandate review.
[Translation]
Canada Lands Company Limited is made up of a head organization known as the CLCL, and three branches, the Canada Lands Company Limited, Parc Downsview Park Inc., and the Old Port of Montreal Corporation.
[English]
Our presentation today will focus on the real estate arm, Canada Lands Company CLC Limited. We will refer to this subsidiary simply as Canada Lands or CLC.
[Translation]
or SIC, in French.
[English]
I will present an overview of CLC and then invite Deana Grinnell to present some of the specifics of our Vancouver interests.
As the real estate arm, CLC is fully defined as a federal, non-agent commercial Crown corporation, which is self-funding and receives no appropriation. We pay taxes at all levels of government and return all of our net revenues to the federal fiscal framework.
We operate at arm's length from the government and report to our sole shareholder through the shareholder's designated representative, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement.
[Translation]
The roles and capacity of the CLC in the purchase of surplus federal real properties are defined by our mandate, our status as a non-agent Crown corporation, the applicable legislation, and the Treasury Board Directive on the Sale or Transfer of Surplus Real Property.
[English]
Once federal custodians have determined that one of their properties is no longer required for program purposes, and if said property meets the criteria for sale to CLC as defined by the Treasury Board directive, we negotiate to purchase the property from the custodian at fair market value.
[Translation]
The CLC then acts as principal promoter of the asset. We launch participation and consultation processes and we obtain municipal approval for the development plan.
[English]
You may recall from the description of the 2001 mandate review I mentioned earlier the phrase "with best value to the Canadian taxpayer.'' Allow me to expand on that.
What makes Canada Lands Company Limited unique is that from coast to coast we create benefits beyond our financial contributions. We handle complex properties. We enable surplus, underutilized properties to be reintegrated in productive ways into communities. Our projects move forward taking into account community, municipal, environmental, First Nations and private sector interests, as well as market conditions. We define community interests to include our obligations as set out by the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
We fully comply with all municipal and provincial planning requirements. We create partnerships. We are proud of some of the innovative partnerships established with some British Columbia and Ontario first nations, and recently we celebrated the opening of a new interchange built and funded in partnership with the City of Calgary.
[English]
We deliver community amenities. Our projects have provided for more than 2,000 affordable housing units, commemoration of military and heritage land uses, and school sites and include parkland allocations beyond municipal standards.
The company's extensive engagement process really is our hallmark. To put a metric on it, we conducted more than 200 public and special interest group meetings before submitting to the City of Ottawa our development plans for the former Rockcliffe Base. Our plans for both our Ottawa and our Calgary projects were recently approved by their respective city councils without amendment or objection.
Community aspirations and municipal requirements are what drive the work we do. We consider and discuss in an open forum the multitude of viewpoints and at times competing ideas. All of these inform the development plans that are brought forward, and in that particular capacity I invite Ms. Deana Grinnell, our senior director in Vancouver, to describe the context of and our approach for our holdings in that city.
Deana Grinnell, Senior Director of Real Estate, Canada Lands Company Limited: Chair, thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks today. I will review matters of Canada Lands' partnership with three First Nations on properties that we jointly own in British Columbia. I will also provide an overview of the planning process being led by the City of Vancouver and discuss our outreach to parties who have an interest in these lands.
Canada Lands and the Musqueam Indian Band, the Squamish Nation and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, which collectively we call the JV partners, have come together in a joint venture as owners of three former Government of Canada properties, namely the Heather Street Lands and the Jericho Lands in Vancouver and the Marine Drive Lands in West Vancouver.
In September of 2014, the three nations received a 28 per cent interest in these lands through a settlement from Canada. Canada Lands purchased the remaining 72 per cent interest from the departments and sold a 22 per cent interest to the nations to create a 50-50 joint venture, which was contemplated by the nations at the time of their settlement with Canada. The properties are no longer federal lands.
Canada Lands and the three nations each have an indivisible 50-50 beneficial interest in the lands. The purpose of the joint venture is to prepare a plan for the lands and complete the rezoning, servicing and subdivision, and sale or lease. Redevelopment will offer mutual benefit to the joint venturers, including social and economic benefits to the nations' partners, to the city of Vancouver and also to the local community.
As a non-agent Crown corporation, Canada Lands must comply with all municipal planning requirements. Further, in respect of our 50-50 joint venture, any request or demand on these sites must be considered in the context of our partnership. Decisions that affect the lands are not Canada Lands' alone to make.
Let me tell you about the Heather Street Lands in particular. They are 21 acres. On the lands today are several buildings, including the heritage Fairmont Academy, which is listed on the city's heritage registry and is expected to be retained.
Urban planning for major projects in Vancouver is led by the city at the request of landowners. The joint venture partners have requested that the city prepare a new land use plan, which they call a policy statement, to guide the redevelopment of the Heather Street Lands.
The new plan for the lands may ultimately include a dense mix of urban residential and community uses, in buildings potentially reaching up to 15 storeys high, based on local comparable developments. Upon redevelopment, the city will require the inclusion of 20 per cent affordable housing, a child care centre, parks and open space improvements, transportation improvements, as well as the retention of the heritage building. Our planning must also consider a potential new rapid transit station located within 200 metres of the site, which may require additional funding from development.
Throughout the city-led planning process, the city identifies stakeholders to be consulted. As planning proceeds, Canada Lands will carry out its own engagement with stakeholders as well, with a goal to satisfy our obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act and to encourage the community and stakeholders to get involved. To date a number of groups have expressed interest in the process for these lands, including the local residents group; the French school board, which I refer to as CSF; the Vancouver School Board; the Vancouver city police; child care operators; arts groups; and the local hospital, among others.
The city approved the planning process for Heather Street by council in July 2016 and was ready to launch the process in October 2016. The preparation of the new land use plan is expected to take 12 to 16 months, with subsequent rezoning another 18 months, followed by subdivision and site servicing. We expect that the earliest construction may get under way on the Heather Street Lands is 2020.
The CSF and École Rose-des-vents have made us and the city aware of their ongoing search for two new school sites in the city of Vancouver and their interest in the Heather Street Lands.
The JV partners have invited CSF to participate fully in the planning process and have requested information to assist with understanding their needs, including a school use feasibility assessment that was prepared for the Fairmont Academy and a general functional program that identifies the extent of facilities sought for a new school in this location. We have yet to receive that information, but we are hopeful.
We were pleased that the CSF was able to attend our first public event on September 24, where we introduced our joint venture partnership and invited people to participate in the planning process. We encourage the CSF's participation in the process going forward to ensure that the city has the information needed to support its planning deliberations.
In addition to our work on the Heather Street lands, in July 2016 we were met by agents working on behalf of the B.C. Ministry of Education, as well as CSF, to assess several potential school sites for a new francophone school in the city. We shared information to assist with the evaluation of the opportunity on our Heather Street Lands and will continue to make ourselves available to assist that process.
The decision whether to locate a school on these lands must take into account many factors. The mix of land uses and public benefits will be determined by the city through the fullness of the comprehensive planning process. The joint venture partners will endeavour to work with the city and the community and will explore new opportunities to deliver community benefit while preparing a viable plan. It will be city council that ultimately decides on the proposed policy statement for the lands.
I hope this information has been helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McBain and Ms. Grinnell.
The first question will be asked by Senator Gagné.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentation. I am delighted to hear you say that the Canada Lands Company is subject to the Official Languages Act, but in your opinion, does it meet its responsibilities under parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Official Languages Act?
[English]
Mr. McBain: We believe in continuous improvement, so we can always do better.
In terms of Parts IV, V and VI, we are confident in what we do and how we conduct our business. In the case of this property, Part VII is a challenge. It's a complex planning environment, to be sure. I think you heard from Ms. Grinnell how many competing interests we have for the same properties.
The purchase and sale agreement with the government when we purchased the land included the requirement to consider our obligations for schools and for the Official Languages Act. In that regard, by engaging as we have with the CSF and explaining our process, I believe we are meeting our obligation.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: When we examine the status report on official languages published in 2014-2015, we see that what you have just said is well reflected there, which is that you are committed to respecting parts IV, V and VI. However, you also say that part VII of the Official Languages Act does not apply to your organization. I find that a bit strange. Could you explain that?
Regarding the development of official language minority communities and the promotion of French and English in Canadian society, you mentioned that you had no results or initiatives that show that you respect part VII of the Official Languages Act. That is why I wondered why the organization does not see itself as subject to part VII of the act.
[English]
Mr. McBain: If I can clarify, we do consider that we are subject to Part VII of the act. To be clear on that, there were some aspects of that evaluation that we feel did not apply to us, but not Part VII. We feel Part VII does apply to us.
Our work in support of, for example, the CSF in Vancouver is continuing.
[Translation]
And that is despite the difference that exists between the deadlines of the French School Board and the Canada Lands Company Limited. There is a large gap between the two deadlines, unfortunately.
[English]
I think you heard Deana explain that we have no choice but to follow the City of Vancouver's municipal planning process. We are engaging with the CSF and are encouraging them to participate, and we have asked for some of their studies to help support their argument. However, it is part of a process that we do not control that is run by the city. In terms of promoting that as a viable and reasonable request, we are fully there.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: According to the Directive on the Sale or Transfer of Surplus Real Property, the Canada Lands Company is obliged to take into account, and I quote:
[. . .] consideration of the interests of communities, including official language minority communities, and other levels of government [. . .];
How long have you known that the French School Board of British Columbia needed to expand its schools?
[English]
Mr. McBain: I believe our initial contact was back in August of 2015. We had eight or nine exchanges with them at the time, but when we took title to the property, the early days were spent with our partners putting our teams together and getting our establishment.
We have now formally engaged the city, which is their process, and now started the consultation. In that respect, we've made sure to invite the CSF to be part of that and engaged throughout.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: According to what the school board tells us, the province and the school board expressed the need to expand the school in 2007. When this transfer from the Government of Canada to the company took place, was all of the information concerning this need provided to your corporation?
[English]
Mr. McBain: I wasn't there at the time of the transfer. I know the requirement was understood by us, and there was a mention in the agreement on purchase and sale, but I don't know whether the documentation on the amount of engagement was transferred.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to introduce a senator who has just joined us. His tardiness was surely caused by transportation issues. Senator, would you like to introduce yourself?
Senator Mockler: I am Senator Percy Mockler, from New Brunswick.
[English]
The Chair: Before going on to the next senator, I want to ask a follow-up to Senator Gagné's question.
I know that memory is a failing faculty, Mr. McBain, but I have a letter addressed to you, dated November 9, 2011, by Mr. Raymond Ouimet, who was the president of the school board at that time, where he indicates:
As you have been made aware last September, I would like to discuss the acquisition of a portion of either the Fairmont site and/or Jericho Lands that are considered surplus given the re-location of the RCMP and DND headquarters.
He said the Government of British Columbia had already sent a request to the Government of Canada to consider their land needs to provide for new schools and for the purpose of public interest.
So a request was made to you, Mr. McBain, in 2011. What happened?
Mr. McBain: That letter was addressed to me specifically?
The Chair: Yes, it was addressed to Mr. John McBain, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Mr. McBain: Yes, in my previous role as an assistant deputy minister.
At that time we would have taken that question into consideration, but I think because the government was planning to dispose of those properties and was in negotiation — I don't have the benefit, I'm sorry, of the response that would have been sent, but because the government was considering the disposal of those properties, they would have simply, as I said, indicated in the agreement for purchase and sale that came from, at that time Public Works, which was the owner of the Heather Street site, the requirement to consider this in the future use of the property.
The Chair: Was there consultation with the school board at that time, in recognition of the duty to consult as part of Part VII of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. McBain: That could have been done by our region of Public Works in Vancouver. I can't say for certain.
The Chair: You could always send that information to us.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentation.
I note that your company is a commercial Crown corporation and, as you have indicated, Mr. McBain, reports to Public Services and Procurement Canada. Let me remind you, as Senator Gagné has noted, that your company has obligations under the Official Languages Act, namely, Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the act. In addition, let me remind you as well that your company has obligations under the Directive on the Sale or Transfer of Surplus Real Property that requires it to consider the francophone community's interest when selling or transferring real property.''
The reason I mention this is because this fall this committee heard the frustrations of the British Columbia francophones trying to acquire land so that they could expand the delivery of French-language education in the province.
After listening to your presentation, it seems to me you are suggesting that you have considered your obligations under Part VII of the act regarding the Heather Street Lands.
Let us talk about the Heather Street Lands. I understand it's located near École Rose-des-vents, contains 21 acres, was previously occupied by the RCMP, was acquired by your company and First Nations in 2014, and on the land there is a building formerly used as a school. At the moment, that building is for rent, and the school board representing École Rose-des-vents needs three to four acres to build a school, so that the rest of the land would remain with your company's development.
My understanding is that your company is refusing to rent or lease it to the school board. Why is it not possible to immediately lease one of the Heather Street Lands buildings to École Rose-des-vents so that it can be renovated and accommodate students? Why is it not possible to sever part of the lands to build the school? Please explain that to me.
Mr. McBain: Thank you for the question. There are many aspects of your question I would like to respond to.
First, we fully acknowledge and accept and embrace our requirements and our obligations under Part VII. At no point would I want to leave the impression that we don't consider those to be completely pertinent to us and a key part of how we engage.
Second, with respect to the Treasury Board directive, that applies to federal government departments. It does not apply to us. It guides their decision making in terms of how they dispose of properties, but the Treasury Board directive does not apply to us as a non-agent Crown corporation.
We work with what is processed through it, but it does not apply to us. That's a technicality. But it doesn't change the fact that we do respect our obligations and will work with groups that are interested in the use of our property.
With respect to the properties that you have identified, at no time has any of the buildings on that property ever been used as a school. So there is a major point of departure between your question to me and my response, senator.
The properties we have there are an operations building, an administration building, the academy, portable offices and an RCMP forensics laboratory.
The particular issue with those buildings on site is that they do not meet the code requirements for schools or schoolchildren. The zoning for the site does not allow for a school use.
If we were to suggest that the school lease that property, they would need to get the building up to code for a school, and they would need to get an amendment to zoning. That is at least an 18-month process just for the zoning change. The City of Vancouver informed us that because the land is part of a comprehensive land planning study, they would not entertain an interim zoning change until the comprehensive land planning process is complete.
Senator McIntyre: I want to follow up a little bit on this. Your company is one of the federal institutions required to submit, as you know, an annual review on official languages for the application not only under Part VII but under Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act. I know that the 2014-15 review of your company states the following — and it is not very impressive. It says that the obligations — and we're talking about your company — under Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the act are almost never on a senior management committee's agenda.
Second, there are no mechanisms in place to regularly monitor the implementation of Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the act and to inform the deputy head of the results.
Third, no activities are carried out to measure the availability or quality of services offered in both official languages. That's not Part VII, that's Part IV.
No measures are taken to ensure that the institution remains systematically informed of official language minority communities' priorities, Part VII, nor are there any mechanisms in place to determine and document the impact of the institution's decisions on the implementations of Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the act, such as adopting or reviewing a policy, creating or abolishing a program or establishing or eliminating a service point.
There are no follow-up measures to evaluate the extent to which official language obligations are implemented. No initiatives were taken to contribute to the development of official language minority communities or to the promotion of English and French in Canadian society, Part VII.
Finally, although the institution has an internal — we're talking about your company — official languages policy, it focuses essentially on matters relating to communications with and services to the public. It does not make any reference to the agency's obligations under Part VII of the act.
As to public consultations, the policy states that they are to be conducted in the official language of the majority outside of Montreal and Ottawa. Under the current policy, the consultations held in British Columbia are conducted in English only.
This comes from the 2014-15 review. What do you have to say about that?
Mr. McBain: I think that you need to consider the context of what we do. In that regard, we acquire properties, we explore, we engage. As I said earlier, community engagement and consultation is our hallmark. To get official development plans for Rockcliffe or for Calgary-Currie approved without objection in record time, approved by city councils, means that we do our work in advance to make sure we take into account what the community is saying about our projects.
We acquire properties across the country, we do the development, and then we move on. So with each project, the considerations are taken in and of themselves. We are very conscious of our offer of services at our other facilities, such as the Vieux-Port de Montréal or the CN Tower. Yes, I suppose, as I said earlier, we would always look for continuous improvement. We could put a standing item on our management committee to talk about where we are with respect to official languages.
Senator McIntyre: But relevant feedback we've been receiving from the B.C. francophone community is that you have not consulted them since these lands were acquired in 2014. That's the bottom line right there, and we've heard a lot of that.
Mr. McBain: We have eight instances of exchanges with them.
Senator McIntyre: What was said?
Mr. McBain: We asked for information. They have not provided —
Senator McIntyre: They provided you the information.
Mr. McBain: No, they haven't.
Senator McIntyre: They have been providing you with the information all along.
Mr. McBain: Sir, I must disagree with you. They have provided us some information. We know they are in possession of a study to —
Senator McIntyre: Would you undertake to provide to us in writing the information that was exchanged between the two groups, between your company and the French B.C. community?
Mr. McBain: Certainly.
Senator McIntyre: You undertake to do that? Very well. I would like to go on the next round.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871, as you may recall. Did you know that? What do you do with all of that land in the City of Vancouver? Why do you have so much land in that city?
[English]
Mr. McBain: Because three federal custodian departments determined that their holdings were surplus to their program requirements and declared them surplus. Consistent with the Treasury Board directive that applies to those departments, they sold them to Canada Lands in 2014. So we are now joint venture owners, partners in owning those lands, with three First Nations, and that's lands at Heather Street, Jericho, and Marine Drive in West Vancouver. So it's relatively recently that we have come into possession of these lands.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: What do you do with those lands, aside from three or four associations with aboriginal people, and so on? Are you building residences, schools, hospitals, hotels, bars? What are you doing with them?
[English]
Mr. McBain: We have started a very complex planning process that is governed by the City of Vancouver. They lead the consultation and planning process. They determine density and what they want to see on those properties. We are participating in that process and at the same time are identifying stakeholder groups that have identified a desire. As Deana Grinnell indicated, we have the Vancouver hospital, the Vancouver School Board, the CSF, the Vancouver Police Department, an arts and day care group that have all indicated a desire to use some or part of our property for their purposes.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Have you visited this day care?
[English]
Mr. McBain: No, I haven't.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: The grounds of the day care are smaller than this table, and you have hundreds of square metres all around it. You could be generous and give a little. It took less time to cede the land where the National Assembly of Quebec is, and that was eight months of negotiation with the government. The land has belonged to them since 1863.
The Plains of Abraham is one of the largest urban parks, and this is where the Quebec City armoury will be built. It was destroyed by fire. Exchanges take place with a small English-language school and a small English-language church of some denomination. It is about 200 kilometres square. Canada's first military base is in Valcartier. I did the trip by helicopter and Jeep. Agreements were struck with the indigenous peoples, with the Government of Quebec, and it is taking some time.
I understand that I am not a lawyer. You are governed by many laws, and there are about fifty officials working on this file. However, there is not much going on. Why is it difficult to sell 200 square metres of land to Vancouver's francophones? Give me some explanations because, logically, it makes no sense. From a legal perspective, you may have explanations, legislation, agreements with the city, with the urbanism committees, with the indigenous communities. I understand all of that, but it is not very complicated to give away a few hundred square metres of land when everyone is willing to do so.
I understand that education falls under provincial jurisdiction, but you have the land. If you ever decide to sell them this land, I hope the price will be zero. It would be unacceptable, particularly as part of the celebrations for the 150th anniversary of the Confederation of Canada, for the CLC to sell land even for only $5 to full-fledged Canadians. The government has no right to deprive them of a living space. I'm not talking about people my age. I am talking about children aged 18, 24 and 30 months. This day care does not have a square inch of grass. Not an inch. I am generous when I say our table is larger than their backyard. Twenty-eight children attend the day care. Yet Canada is one of the largest countries in the world. I am not talking about the legal point of view; I am speaking from the perspective of compassion. We are not asking for charity, just land. Why? Not to speculate or make money, but to give the children a yard with some grass.
I believe that senior officials should look beyond the law and be compassionate. I invite you to visit this day care centre, Mr. McBain. I am sure you are a good person. You probably have children or grandchildren. I warn you: I have four years left in the Senate, and I will not let you go. I will be dogging you every day, here and in the House, until the day you send me an email saying, "Senator Maltais, we gave them a few square metres, planted four inches of lawn and a small maple.'' I await your comments.
[English]
Mr. McBain: Thank you for your questions and your comments. I want to be really clear at the start. At no point of this response have we said no to the CSF. The really unfortunate thing here is the deadlines and the timetables that each is operating under. We have no choice but to follow the City of Vancouver's planning process. That is not optional for us. It's mandatory. We are not the Crown. We don't have the primacy of the federal government. So we must follow their process. We have not said no to the CSF.
We know the particulars of the buildings on that site. We know the zoning of that site, and we know that there are issues that would prevent it from being used today for a school. But we invite them to be part of that process.
Equally, in the province of British Columbia, the province is the authority for education. We have the Vancouver School Board asking for a site, and we have the CSF asking for a school site from our property. At some point, the City of Vancouver will let us know what they want on that property. To be able to say yes right now, to say "use this land,'' would require a zoning change. The city has told us they will not entertain an interim zoning change when that land is being considered as part of a comprehensive development plan.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Has the Canada Lands Company Limited asked the City of Vancouver to rezone part of the land? Do you intend to sell it to the francophone community? The price will be discussed later.
[English]
Mr. McBain: We asked them if they would consider rezoning for an alternative use such as the school, and their answer was no. We have indicated our support, and I think the CSF has written a letter to the city, which is in the possession of the committee. It indicated CLC's support for a school in the development.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: If I understand correctly, the City of Vancouver does not want to rezone the land to make a small day care school zone for 25 or 30 francophone students. However, it is willing to buy the land from the Canada Lands Company Limited for industrial or residential development.
[English]
Mr. McBain: No. What they are conducting is their normal process of planning engagement, consultation, and then planned development. The requirement of the CSF for a school site will be considered by the city along with all of the other requests. The Province of British Columbia and the Ministry of Education will ultimately decide, because we have two requests for school sites there, which school site they are prepared to support.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Madam Chair, I will conclude by saying that it is more complicated to give a few hundred square metres to a francophone school in Vancouver than to a dictator to invade Poland. It's incredibly complicated, and it cannot be explained in a democratic country like Canada. I am looking at the situation coldly, and I am not blaming anyone. I am from northern Quebec, and when we need 100 feet of land, we listen to each other and make a decision. We have never had a problem.
I do not understand why a community and its children are being prevented from growing and living in acceptable conditions. If you could see the day care, I am sure that you would not enrol your children there. I hope that this situation will be resolved as soon as possible.
The Chair: Several senators still wish to ask questions. Mr. McBain and Ms. Grinnell, as you know, the Ministry of Education supports the efforts of the francophone school board to purchase land. I have in my possession letters sent to you indicating this support. You know that there is support from the province and that it has an obligation to respect children who, under section 23 of the Charter, are entitled to education in French. In this sense, the federal government has an obligation, the Canada Lands Company Limited has an obligation and, of course, so does the province.
[English]
Senator Fraser: I was riveted by the 2014 review: no measurement, no monitoring, no regular meetings, almost never discussed at a senior level, no significant accomplishments of note this year. Then, when we turn to the section of the review concerning Part VII of the act, I was glad to hear you say, Mr. McBain, that you fully accept and embrace your obligations. But in answer to each of the three questions put about what specifically have you done, the answer is "not applicable.''
I would like you to tell me that I'm wrong when I say that, reading this, I came away with the clear impression that the Canada Lands Company's approach to its obligations under the Official Languages Act is essentially passive, not to say minimalist.
Mr. McBain: Obviously, I would disagree. I appreciate that that report would paint a picture differently, but, again, if we are working in a community where there is no second-language interest or degree of pursuit of what we are providing, whether it be in Calgary or in Edmonton, then it is difficult for us to respond.
Once we're done with that property, we leave that community and we move on to the next one. This is the most significant engagement we've had from a group that is interested in promoting and furthering minority language rights. In that regard, we are fully engaged. We are very conscious that it is a specific ask.
I don't like a four-year planning process. It consumes an incredible amount of time and resources on our part. But we are subject to what the municipality specifies.
Senator Fraser: I would be willing to bet that in every area where Canada Lands has property, there are minority language communities, and that outside of basically the Montreal-Ottawa, possibly Toronto, belt, those communities are very small, under-resourced and up against sometimes very significant competition. Is it part of your concept, your vision, your ideal planning process to have as part of your regular administration people whose task it is to do outreach to those communities, whether they be francophone outside Quebec or anglophone inside Quebec, to work with them to determine whether there are ways in which you can be of assistance to them? It could be as simple as helping them to understand the local planning process, which is a labyrinth that very few small organizations have the knowledge or the expertise to negotiate.
I realize that you face demands from all kinds of constituencies. You talked about hospitals and I don't know what all. I respect that. But by law, you have particular obligations to minority language communities. Is it not possible for you to take a more proactive approach in light of those obligations?
Mr. McBain: Yes, it is.
Senator Fraser: Will you?
Mr. McBain: We will certainly explore it. To your point, one of the first things we do when we move into a community is to have a very open open house.
When we take ownership of a property, we have no plans. It's a blank slate. But we're Canada Lands, we just took possession of this property, and we would like to develop it to bring it back into the community. I can think of Shannon Park, for example, in Dartmouth.
We have a meeting, and we invite everyone to come. We put ads in the papers and make sure we reach out to groups that we know of. We really want to engage with people. We have what we call an Ideas Fair, where people bring in ideas on how this property and this community can be reintegrated. That's what we've been doing.
To your point, senator, we can engage. We can identify those minority language groups and reach out specifically to them. Who knows? Maybe they missed the ad or didn't see the flyer. We reach out to them and let them know.
I assure you that all of our signage, monuments and work that we do in commemorating either First Nations or military legacies are done in full respect of both official languages. But to your point about engaging with specific groups, we can work harder to identify them to invite them to be part of our process.
Senator Fraser: Before I get dumped on from a great height by Senators McIntyre and Mockler, I should note that New Brunswick, being the only officially bilingual province, has unique circumstances but also needs, I'm sure.
[Translation]
The Chair: This is the perfect transition for Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: Mr. McBain, I have already had the opportunity to work closely with the CLC when I was in Fredericton, New Brunswick. The link was with Moncton, but you touched on Fredericton a bit.
I would like to come back to Senator Fraser's question. You said, "We can engage''. Can we hope to receive from you this evening the commitment that, by the end of January 2017, you will try to gather information from the francophone community to understand the urgency and the need to serve this community?
[English]
You're a professional. We don't question your professionalism, sir, but I have a hard time accepting — and that's probably because I had the opportunity to work with Canada Lands in the Moncton area — when you said, in response to Senator Fraser, "We can engage.''
I'd like you to formally say not only that you will engage, but that you will do something in the context so that you can be debriefed and have better information on this alarming situation that is persisting.
I will come back to being at the table with the City of Vancouver.
Mr. McBain: May I have a question of clarification? When you talk about the alarming situation, you're talking about the CSF in Vancouver?
Senator Mockler: Absolutely.
Mr. McBain: We have every intention to engage. If you would like a commitment, we will re-engage. Deana meets with them on a regular basis and has asked them to engage as part of our planning and consultation process.
Senator Mockler: Thank you. Do you have a time frame, a date for that? The time is urgent here.
Ms. Grinnell: For our next engagement, I expect that we'll be working with the community in the new year, again, for further consultation.
Senator Mockler: Madam chair, I don't know if this question is proper: When you do meet with them, can you then send information to the chair of our committee so that we know exactly, following the meeting you've had with us, where we're going?
Mr. McBain: We can, but again, I repeat, and I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, this is a process that is controlled by the City of Vancouver. We can't change, as much as we'd like to.
Senator Mockler: Now I'll come to the City of Vancouver and compare that to the City of Moncton. There were times I was at the table. My officials were at the table, I would say, all of the time, and that with was the Government of New Brunswick. Canada Lands was also at the table when we dispatched that big parcel of land, and we did touch on the business community, community activities and school activities.
When you talk about the City of Vancouver, to negotiate, you need at least two people. Were you there, or who was there if you were not, Mr. McBain? Who was there to represent Canada Lands for this case in point when you said the City of Vancouver would determine possible stakeholders who would desire to do something with the land? Who was at the table, and was that brought to the attention of Mr. McBain?
Mr. McBain: Both Deana and Bob were at the table with the city. I've been informed about the complexity of the City of Vancouver planning process all the way through. I was aware of this from the letters that were written to me.
I don't know, Deana or Bob, if you want to say anything about that consultation.
Ms. Grinnell: I think I understand the question correctly. We have met with the City of Vancouver, we have met with the CSF, and the CSF has met with the City of Vancouver planning department as well and shared a package of information in regard to their work to secure a new school site and the need.
Senator Mockler: What was the follow-up? Was any correspondence sent between the two groups?
Ms. Grinnell: We've received the information and shared additional correspondence through our normal practices. I'm not sure how the city responded to the CSF.
Senator Mockler: Give us a dry run, Mr. McBain, with your experience with the City of Vancouver and the francophone community of Vancouver, what they should be doing immediately in order to re-sensitize and re-engage that process, have a decision. If they have to go see ministers or responsible community leaders, we should all be at that table. This is urgent. Give me a dry run. What would you do?
Mr. McBain: I will ask Deana because she's intimately familiar with the specifics of the Vancouver planning process. Quite frankly, senator, it is unlike anything I have seen across Canada. It is more complex. I'll ask Deana to explain it.
Ms. Grinnell: First, I want to make a point that was just raised for me. The Ministry of Education is championing the CSF's need for a school right now, as well, and has reached out to us and has also reached out to the city specifically on that to share information. That has occurred. They're continuing to assess the viability of three target sites in Vancouver, one of which is the Heather Street Lands, and there are two other sites as well.
I'm sorry, I forgot the question.
Senator Mockler: The process.
Ms. Grinnell: The City of Vancouver process for preparing a land use plan, which they call a policy statement, is typically about a 16- to 18-month process. It is done at the request of the landholder. However, they're certainly in the lead.
Neighbourhood-level planning in the City of Vancouver is very much a city process. In working with them, our requirement is to assist with the procurement of a master planning team and support the development of options for the site. What they do is identify a series of policies that will apply to the lands.
Each policy statement is therefore a little bit custom, as you can imagine. A neighbourhood plan is very context specific. They've got a certain set of obligations which they would like to see achieved on this site, and they've articulated already affordable housing and daycare as two of those uses.
Through the process, they begin a series of stakeholder engagements. They start with a very broad engagement, which is what has just occurred.
In the same kind of spirit of our engagement, they reach out broadly at first to identify who those interests are, and then they begin to specifically target those interest groups to understand their needs, and that is a part of the process that is yet to come.
I know the CSF in particular has reached out to the city to articulate their needs, and the city will certainly be including them as a stakeholder in their engagement work.
Over the course of the next several months, as they start to identify the interests in the plan, they'll start to work up plan options and evaluate those options; and ultimately, I think the land use will be a desire to optimize what the public benefit is within the plan and how to achieve those city objectives that they are working to achieve. Council will ultimately be asked to consider that plan.
It's a bit of a lengthy process. It requires a lot of detail both from interest groups and from the technical team who will be planning those lands in order to identify the right fit for that neighbourhood.
Senator Mockler: I will go on the second round.
The Chair: Thank you because we're kind of running out of time, but we still do have some questions and this is an important issue, so I will continue on this topic for another 10 minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: My question will be quick because it is actually a request. Given that you are the Canada Lands Company Limited, is it possible for you to communicate with people in the community in their official language and to ensure that the consultations and meetings you hold with the francophone community take place in French?
Mr. McBain: Certainly.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: I know that Vancouver's francophones have recently received some support for land acquisition. As you know, in September of this year, the B.C. Supreme Court handed down a decision ruling that there was a violation of section 23 of the Charter related to École Rose-des-vents in Vancouver and its difficulty in identifying a school site. That said, the judge didn't order the construction of the new school in the specific case of École Rose-des-vents.
However, the ruling does stipulate that the Province of B.C. must assist the school board in negotiations to acquire the required site. Obviously, to date no progress has been made. My question is this: Did the B.C. government approach your company, the Canada Lands Company, to support the francophone community in its efforts to acquire either Heather Street Lands or Jericho Lands?
Ms. Grinnell: Yes, as mentioned, the agents for the provincial government have been in touch with us to inquire about the possibilities there and sought information about the sites to help them with their due diligence and feasibility. They're certainly aware of the process that we have embarked on with the City of Vancouver as well and recognize that the opportunity to participate in that process exists for the CSF, and they're mindful of our work here.
Senator Mockler: I will bring this to your attention because you will be answering the question that Senator McIntyre asked you previously, and you said you would provide the information to the chair. You're at the table and your mandate specifies that you are at the table. Your mandate says:
Canada Lands Company is a self-financing, federal Crown corporation that specializes in real estate, development and attractions management. The company's goal in all it does is to produce the best possible benefit for Canadian communities and the Government of Canada. Canada Lands Company works to achieve its mandate with industry leading expertise; the company prides itself on its consultation based approach to pursuing community-oriented goals . . . .
I think the case in point that this committee is bringing to your attention is very important, and action must be taken. If not, we will continue to pursue this.
Mr. McBain, I'd like to have a commitment from you with your professionalism of knowing how government works on whether there will be a follow-up on what we have done here tonight to sensitize you. You are part of the community base, and you have a say but on Canada Lands a final say if you say yes to what is being proposed or not.
Mr. McBain: I have a say. We have a say. But this is a Vancouver city planning process, and to your point senator, we have 10 school sites on our properties. It's not as though we don't have school sites and we're against school sites.
Senator Mockler: We didn't say that.
Mr. McBain: Our Rockcliffe property has three school sites. There are reservations for three school sites, one separate and two English, one junior and one more senior. We build these sites into our development.
Our point is that in Vancouver it is not solely our call, and the process, the length of it, is frustrating for all but particularly for the CSF that would like an answer now, and we can't give that answer now.
Senator Mockler: Are you giving us the commitment that you will follow it?
Mr. McBain: Of course we will follow it. I made the commitment that we will engage, and we will continue to engage; however, I have to repeat it is not solely our call in terms of what the preferences are for this property.
The Chair: If I can follow up on what has been expressed, it would appear that we're leaving it to the City of Vancouver to control the process. It's as if we're washing our hands and saying, "We can't do anything about it; it's the City of Vancouver.''
Are you indicating to the City of Vancouver that you are obligated under the Official Languages Act to look out for the minority language interest, in this case, the francophones, who are asking for something? Is this point being made very clear on your part to the City of Vancouver, that you have obligations and that you have concerns in the way they are moving that you will not be able to respect the obligations that you have under the Official Languages Act?
Mr. McBain: As I said earlier, I have not been engaged directly with the City of Vancouver, so I can't speak from first-hand experience, but I know that part of the agreement with the joint venture partners was that the consideration of our obligations under the Official Languages Act is understood. Deana, I don't know to what extent that has been made, but the representation was made by the CSF to the city which indicated our support for their need.
The Chair: I think you are a major player. You have 50 per cent say. What you say is very important, and in that sense, your support would be a positive measure and a contribution that you would make under Part VII of the Official Languages Act, that you have engaged with the francophone community and that you are supporting them in their purchase of five acres of land from the Heather Street Lands site and the Jericho Lands.
Will you do that, sir?
Mr. McBain: I can't commit to five acres because I don't know the specifics, but in terms of our support for their request, it is there; we have made that statement.
The Chair: So you will take that positive measure forward?
Mr. McBain: We'll take a positive measure in repeating the CSF's request for a school site.
I've only been engaged specifically about Heather. I don't know if they have made a formal request to us for Jericho. I understand from their previous testimony that they did speak about Jericho. It is farther behind in the planning process than the Heather Street lands, so that's the one that we've been dealing with.
The Chair: There may be an opportunity then to act now if it is further along in the process to make sure those desires are put forward.
Senator McIntyre: Once again, thank you for attending this meeting and answering some of our questions. They have not all been answered, but at least you answered some of them.
I understand that you report to Public Services and Procurement Canada. Let me assure you that this committee will be following this file very closely. We will also be following the file with the minister responsible.
Mr. McBain: We report through the minister. We don't report to that department, just to be clear. We report to the customer as the shareholder's representative.
The Chair: Who is the minister you report to?
Mr. McBain: The Honourable Judy Foote is our minister.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, we thank you. You have seen just how very important this file is to the senators when it comes to respecting official languages, the vitality of francophone minority communities and, above all, for the vitality of francophones in Vancouver, British Columbia. Thank you very much.
Secondly, we have Jean-Pierre Corbeil, assistant director of the Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division of Statistics Canada, to discuss statistics on the francophonie in British Columbia and to comment on suggestions made by some witnesses on reviewing language questions asked during the census and to hold a new post-census survey on the vitality of official language minority communities.
Welcome, Mr. Corbeil. Go ahead.
Jean-Pierre Corbeil, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: I would like to thank the members for inviting Statistics Canada to appear before the committee to contribute to its study on the challenges associated with access to French-language schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia.
My presentation will cover three main topics. I will begin by providing some statistics on enrolment in regular French-as-a-second-language programs, in French immersion programs, and in instructional programs in the official language of the linguistic minority in British Columbia. I will then present statistics on the children of rights-holders, from the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities conducted by Statistics Canada in 2006 in collaboration with about 10 federal government departments and agencies. Finally, I will discuss estimating the number of rights-holders using census data.
Statistics Canada conducts the Elementary-Secondary Education Survey to collect data from the provinces and territories on school enrolment. It then publishes the data annually. These data include enrolments in regular French-as-a-second-language, or FSL, programs, in French immersion programs within English schools, and in instructional programs in the first official language of the linguistic minority.
Between the 1997/1998 and 2014/2015 school years, the number of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools in British Columbia saw a gradual decline of 12 per cent or around 73,000. In the same period, there was also a parallel decrease of nearly 32 per cent or 79,000 in the number of students enrolled in regular FSL programs.
However, the number of enrollments in French immersion programs within English schools rose from 29,520 students in 1997/1998 to 50,301 students in 2014/2015, or a 70 per cent increase. Similarly, enrollments in instructional programs in the first official language of the linguistic minority went from 2,859 to 5,382 over the same period. This represents an increase of 88 per cent.
If we look at all public school students enrolled in an FSL program, we observe that between 1997/1998 and 2014/ 2015, the proportion of students enrolled in a regular FSL program or an immersion program fell 4.6 percentage points. This decrease is mostly attributable to a decline in the proportion of students enrolled in regular FSL programs —from 40.7 per cent to 31.6 per cent, — since the proportion of enrollments in French immersion programs rose from 4.8 per cent to 9.3 per cent during this period.
[English]
Provincial and territorial statistics on school enrolment collected by Statistics Canada do not contain any information on the mother tongue of children or their parents, nor on the language of instruction of the parents or brothers and sisters of the enrolled students. As a result, the children of rights holders cannot be identified.
While the census enumerates the country's French mother tongue population, the only Statistics Canada data source that can directly estimate the number of rights holders is the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities conducted in 2006. The survey also measured the number of children of rights-holder parents who are enrolled in minority schools or in a French immersion program. The Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities also provides information on the main reasons behind parents' choice of the language of instruction of their children.
According to that Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities, there were roughly 15,000 school-aged children of rights-holder parents in British Columbia in 2006, and most went to an English school. Specifically, three out of four children of rights holders who attended elementary school were enrolled in an English-language program. At the secondary level, it was almost nine in 10 children.
However, approximately 30 per cent of children of rights holders who went to an English school at either the elementary or the secondary level were enrolled in a French immersion program. In other words, the proportion of children of rights holders enrolled in a French elementary school, 27 per cent, is very similar to the proportion of children enrolled in a French immersion program, 23 per cent.
By comparison, in Canada, outside Quebec, in 2006, 52 per cent of children with at least one rights-holder parent attended French school. Of the children enrolled in elementary school, 56 per cent went to French school, compared with 47 per cent of secondary school students. Lastly, 15 per cent of children of rights-holder parents were enrolled in a French immersion program.
British Columbia's data on enrolments for 2006-07 — that is the same school year as the one for the post-census Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities — indicated that 3,816 students at the kindergarten, elementary and secondary levels were enrolled in an instructional program in the first official language of the linguistic minority.
Data on enrolment in French schools collected in the Elementary-Secondary Education Survey conducted by Statistics Canada are consistent with the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities estimates, according to which no more than roughly one in four children of rights-holder parents attend a French school.
In the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities, parents were asked questions on the reasons why they chose the language of the elementary or secondary school that their child attended.
For children enrolled in a regular English education program in British Columbia, the reasons mentioned most often by parents, in descending order, are the proximity of the school to home, 18 per cent; the quality of the school or the program, 14 per cent; and because English is the mother tongue or best-known language of the parents, mentioned by 12 per cent of the parents, or even main language of the child, mentioned by 7 per cent.
The two main reasons why parents enrolled their child in an immersion program are so that he or she could be bilingual — 25 per cent reported this reason — or learn French — 26 per cent of parents reported this reason.
It is important to mention that the parents of one in two children enrolled in a regular program at an English school reported that they would have preferred that their child go to a French school. The parents of one in three children enrolled in a French immersion program said the same.
[Translation]
Interestingly, of the children in British Columbia in 2011 who had one parent whose mother tongue was French, the other parent of 74 per cent of those children had English as their mother tongue. English was transmitted as the mother tongue to 80 per cent of the children of these parents who form exogamous couples.
The Canadian Census of Population includes a question on mother tongue, or the first language learned in childhood and still understood. However, it does not have any questions on the language of instruction in elementary school or on the language of instruction at the elementary or secondary levels of the child of a Canadian citizen. As a result, the Census of Population cannot directly count the number of rights-holders as defined in subsections 23(1)(b) and 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Census of Population enumerates rights-holders only as defined by subsection 23(1)(a). So just how relevant is this one piece of information? The 2006 census enumerated 12,060 school-age children, between 5 and 17 years of age, in British Columbia who had at least on French-mother-tongue parent.
Those 12,060 children between 5 and 17 years of age enumerated in the 2006 census represented close to 80 per cent of the children of rights-holders in the same age group that were estimated by the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities, or SVOLM.
The 2006 census enumerated 185,675 children aged 5 to 17 years, throughout Canada outside Quebec, with at least one parent whose mother tongue was French. They represented 88 per cent of the children of rights-holders in the same age group enrolled in an elementary or secondary school estimated by the SVOLM.
These results are consistent with the analyses produced using only SVOLM data. When we consider all children of rights-holders in British Columbia, 91 per cent have at least one parent whose mother tongue is French. This means that the census measures a segment of all rights-holders. Nevertheless, using this comparative analysis we can confirm that what is covered in the census represents the majority of rights-holders.
Thank you. I am more than happy to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Corbeil.
Statistics Canada conducted a post-census survey on the vitality of official language minorities in 2006. I understand that it has been of great value. If I am not mistaken, the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities has taken steps to evaluate the possibility of doing another in 2016, but it has run out of time. So my question is this: Do you think there is a need to conduct a new post-census survey on the vitality of official language minorities? When she appeared before the committee in November, the coordinator of the Quebec English-Speaking Communities Research Network made the same suggestion. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Corbeil: My answer will have two parts. It should be noted that one of the reasons — and there are several — why Statistics Canada conducted this survey in 2006, which was made possible by the support of a dozen federal government departments and agencies, is that we had tried to ask questions about language of instruction twice in the past, in the 1993 and 1998 national censuses, tests that are still conducted between two censuses. We had tested questions on language of instruction. For all sorts of reasons, the results were not very conclusive. This had been an important reason for encouraging and stimulating a vitality survey, with no less than five distinct modules on the language of instruction for official language minorities.
Clearly, the survey is very thorough, making it possible to carry out very rich analyses. That being said, those are the reasons given by the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities. This is a survey that must be prepared at least three years prior to a census. In other words, if we were to do it again, we would have to start in 2018. That's why it could not be done for the 2016 census.
With that in mind, it is clear that no other survey has enabled us to obtain such a comprehensive and detailed picture of official language minorities across the country. As such, from 2010 to 2012, Statistics Canada published no fewer than 11 provincial and territorial portraits of official language minorities, for a total of more than 800 pages. So there was a lot of information about minorities.
Senator McIntyre: Very briefly, as I listened to you earlier, I noted the importance of counting the number of rights holders under section 23 of the Charter. My question is: What question could be asked to determine the number of rights holders under paragraph 23(1)(b) of the Charter?
Mr. Corbeil: In 1993, during the national census test, Statistics Canada tried to obtain results on the language of instruction with only one question. The question read as follows: "Since September 1993, in which language was this person taught most of the courses taken at school, college or university?'' The results of the test showed that it was extremely difficult to obtain the information with a single question because of the confusion with the concepts of French immersion and French as a second language instruction in English-language schools and minority schools.
In response to those results, five years later, Statistics Canada attempted to distinguish immersion programs from programs in minority schools by using two questions. Overall, the results were better, but there were still a number of inconsistencies in the responses. Subsequently, we conducted qualitative tests, and the recommendations for improving the question were useful, but it would have been necessary to carry out a major quantitative survey.
It is important to note that this type of census test is conducted with 75,000 people and it was too late to conduct a survey like that in 2016. In addition, whenever we ask a question in a census, it has to have been tested beforehand as part of the national census test. The next one will take place in 2018.
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much for your presentation. One of the difficulties with counting rights holders, especially with exogamous families, is that the question is asked in relation to the mother tongue. However, there are sometimes several mother tongues.
How would you be able to change or add questions and receive multiple responses? What process is being set up so that the answer can be linked to the mother tongue?
Mr. Corbeil: Statistics Canada does not prevent people from giving multiple responses in the census. For information purposes, if I compare the 2006 census, where the questions were asked through a questionnaire, and the vitality survey, where members of official language minorities were interviewed, the number of multiple responses is roughly the same. This means that, in the entire population, and we are talking about 850,000 people who have at least French as their mother tongue, between 6 and 8 per cent gave multiple answers.
In addition, the census guide provides the following information:
For a person who learned two languages at the same time in early childhood, report the language this person spoke most often at home before starting school. Report two languages only if both languages were used equally often and are still understood by this person.
What you need to know is that multiple responses are extremely unstable from one census to another. In recent years, we have paired files to examine the extent to which people who provided multiple responses in one census provided exactly the same type of response in the next census.
We have concluded that the information over the past 25 or 30 years has been very consistent, as almost 80 p. 100 of respondents who provide multiple responses in one census do not provide the same responses in the next census. This does not mean that those answers are not valid, but Statistics Canada tries to ensure that those who give more than one response have actually learned both languages first; people tend to report more languages than the first language learned, even the languages they use outside the home.
Our goal is to get the best quality possible. However, in all census data, 1.5 to 2.5 per cent of Canadians still provide multiple responses to the mother tongue question.
Senator Gagné: In terms of the decision-making process on changing questions, adding questions and providing the opportunity for a multiple response, how do you go about it? Do you think it will be possible to change the questionnaire for the next census in 2021?
Mr. Corbeil: We always hold public consultations before each census. It should be noted that developing a census and preparing it for distribution takes about seven years. So in those seven years, of course, we consult with Canadians to get their opinions on various issues. Statistics Canada's mandate is not only to enable the historical comparability of data, but also to adapt to new realities.
So obviously, we are consulting with Canadians on this issue. You should know that, in 1991, as a result of the census tests, we tested different ways of arranging the questions. Since the number of multiple responses to the census was very high and some studies showed that those responses were very unstable, we had to find ways to make sure that people understood the question.
Originally, the mother tongue question appeared at the very beginning of the module on language, and the response rate was close to 3 or 4 per cent for languages spoken at home. When we rearranged the questions and asked the mother tongue question last, the number of multiple responses literally shrank, dropping to 1.3 per cent of the population.
It should be noted that, in the Canadian census, if we include the sub-questions, we ask about seven questions on language, six of which deal with official languages. This is to allow respondents to fully understand what we are looking for as information, namely knowledge of languages, languages spoken at home, the first language learned in childhood, and so on.
That said, when someone wishes or expresses a well-documented willingness to test new questions in a census, Statistics Canada will keep those requests and considerations in mind; they could be tested for the next national census. Clearly, Statistics Canada does not always make the decisions, and that depends on the results we get from that type of test.
Senator Fraser: Thank you very much. I imagine that the post-censal survey covered Quebec as well?
Mr. Corbeil: Of course.
Senator Fraser: As you know, the criteria for the rights holders are not the same. They are more restricted in Quebec because the mother tongue does not count. Did that pose any problems in determining who the rights holders are in Quebec?
Mr. Corbeil: Absolutely. In December 2007, when we distributed information on the first results of this survey — also called "censal'', because the sampling base is from the census — we did not distribute the information on Quebec rights holders because of the number of exceptions. As you mentioned, the issue of mother tongue is not recognized as such.
Senator Fraser: Or we went to elementary school in English and —
Mr. Corbeil: Exactly. All sorts of questions were asked in the survey. We have an approximation. I don't remember the numbers right now, but the challenge was significant. We simply attempted to list the exceptions in Quebec and, ultimately, we realized that there were other questions we should have asked in order to get the full picture. The reality for Quebec's English-speaking communities is very complex.
Senator Fraser: I encourage you to continue your work because it is crucial.
Mr. Corbeil: I agree. As you may know, the 2006 Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities had a budget of almost $7.5 million. It is a survey with a sample of close to 50,000 people. The survey would not have been possible without the financial support of 10 or so federal departments and agencies. So it's a big project and, despite all the interest, it takes real will to conduct such a survey.
Senator Fraser: We encourage you to do that.
Senator Mockler: I just have two short questions. My question is not about New Brunswick or British Columbia only, but about all the provinces. Mr. Corbeil, from Statistics Canada's point of view, how do you define the term "assimilation''?
Mr. Corbeil: You are asking some excellent questions this evening. Statistics Canada has always been extremely reluctant to use the term "assimilation''. At the beginning, the term "language transfer,'' which had been measured from 1971 onwards, was used to refer to people who spoke another language more often than their mother tongue at home. This information actually reflected the predominant language in the home. This was not necessarily equivalent to what might be called "assimilation'' or "anglicization''.
We have received many comments over the years saying that, just because a person does not speak a language most often at home, it doesn't mean that they are assimilated. Some people do not speak a language most often at home, but they use it outside the home. How can we define assimilation? In English, we would say it is multifaceted, or multidimensional. Of course, the term "anglicization'' can be used.
In the vitality survey we talked about, we asked members of official language minorities a question that read as follows: "What is your main language, that is, the language in which you are most at ease when speaking?'' We found that almost 38 per cent of the members of the francophone minority outside Quebec listed English as their main language. In that case, the term "anglicization'' can probably be used.
Do we use the term "assimilation''? Statistics Canada tends not to use it. Since we are talking about cultural assimilation, linguistic assimilation, is it assimilation at home? This is why, in 2001, there was pressure on Statistics Canada to ask questions about other languages spoken regularly at home, other than the language spoken most often. We were actually able to see that 40 per cent of those who spoke English still used French on a regular basis at home.
So it's a complex issue, and there's no simple answer, as you can see.
Senator Mockler: Francophone lawyers and great legal minds often tell us that they have a definition of assimilation. If their definition of assimilation were used, would Statistics Canada be in a better position to identify assimilation issues? What do you think are the assimilation factors affecting our communities?
Mr. Corbeil: What I think is very clear is that it would be very difficult for Statistics Canada to ask a question about it in a census. Even if people were asked in which language they preferred to communicate, I am not sure that the question would cover everyone. However, it is clear that the demographic weight within communities has a direct impact on what could be called the anglicization of those communities.
What we have seen. . . you know that there is a very high number of francophones outside Quebec, regardless of the criterion used to define them, who live in municipalities where their demographic weight is less than 5 per cent of the population. It is clear that, when you represent 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the population of a municipality, anglicization is considerable. The number of mixed couples, linguistically speaking, is very high. Often, the children's first language is not French and most of them attend English-language schools.
What the vitality survey measured is precisely a set of factors that contribute to the anglicization of those minorities, and it is an extremely complex reality. There are a number of factors to consider, but it is clear that the demographic weight and the availability of services in the language play a major role.
Senator Mockler: Madam Chair, could other factors be identified?
The Chair: Who could identify other factors?
Senator Mockler: Demographic weight is certainly a key element.
Mr. Corbeil: Many people factor in exogamy, having a spouse who speaks another language. The link between exogamy and anglicization is not a one-way street.
Again, the results of previous surveys, including the vitality survey, showed that almost 80 per cent of parents in exogamous couples outside Quebec were already anglicized before the age of 18, even before meeting their English-speaking spouse. So it is clear that anglicization is associated with the demographic weight, the visibility of the language and the institutions.
What is also interesting is that, despite the fact that the majority of parents in exogamous couples predominantly pass on English to their children, the transmission of French has increased over time. This is partly —I'm not saying exclusively — because English-speaking spouses attended immersion schools and have a knowledge of French. Those parents, when they are of an age to have children, often choose to enrol their children in minority schools or immersion programs, even if the first language learned is English.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Corbeil, you mentioned the importance of testing new questions in preparation for the 2021 census. My question is: How long would it take Statistics Canada to design and test new questions?
Mr. Corbeil: Consultations are already under way. They will take place across the country over the next year. The national census test will be prepared very shortly. So consultations have already begun. To have a test in 2018, we need to take action.
Senator McIntyre: My next question is about allophones. Let's take the case of those enrolled in French-language schools in Quebec who subsequently move elsewhere in Canada and who are entitled to receive instruction in French. Is it currently possible to estimate their number?
Mr. Corbeil: We estimated it in the vitality survey. What you should know is that, in that survey, the participants were not only people with French as their mother tongue. To give you an idea, the mother tongue of 69,000 people was a language other than French or English. In addition, 17,000 people reported both French and another language. So, in the survey on the vitality of minorities, roughly 86,000 people are estimated to be francophone minorities outside Quebec. But clearly, we cannot count those rights holders in the census right now.
Senator Gagné: Let me stress that it is very important for provincial and territorial governments and for school boards to be able to count the rights holders. Some adjustments will certainly need to be made to the questions in the 2021 census. I get the impression that we may be underestimating the number of rights holders because we do not ask enough questions.
I mentioned that there were multiple responses to the mother tongue question and that there was no question about the education of the parents or their children. In my opinion, those questions could be added in order to provide a better picture that might help the school boards and the ministries of education in the various provinces and territories with their planning.
Mr. Corbeil: Canada is the only country in the world that asks so many language questions in a census. We have seven questions right now, and if we plan to ask questions about the language of instruction, I think that will be a great challenge.
Senator Gagné: We like challenges.
The Chair: We encourage you to take on that challenge, Mr. Corbeil. As Senator Gagné pointed out, information is important to governments and school boards so that they can better estimate the number of rights holders.
When you do your consultations, are communities invited to participate?
Mr. Corbeil: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Corbeil, since my colleagues have no further questions, I want to sincerely thank you for taking the time to answer our questions and, most importantly, we thank you for the work that you do. Like any department, you are subject to the Official Languages Act. A positive measure for official language communities would be your consideration of adding some questions to the census.
Mr. Corbeil: Message received and understood.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Corbeil.
I would like to inform my colleagues that, since the Senate's legislative agenda is very busy and the Senate is sitting at the same time as this committee, this was our last meeting before the holiday season, although we have permission to sit.
I want to thank our analyst from the Library of Parliament, Marie-Ève Hudon, our clerk, Kevin Pittman, and of course, all my colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)